Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday December 18, 2009 @12:00PM
from the beyond-acta dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The draft intellectual property text of the EU - Canada Trade Agreement has leaked, with news that the EU is demanding that Canada fundamentally alter copyright, patent, and trademark law. The laundry list of demands includes copyright term extension, WIPO ratification, DMCA-style legislation, resale rights, new enforcement provisions, and following patent, trademark, and design law treaties. The net result is that when combined with the ACTA requirements, Canadian copyright law may cease to be Canadian." Reader TheTurtlesMoves stresses the "first sale doctrine" aspect of the Canada - EU negotiations. Once an artist sells a creative work, should she get a cut of any future resales of that same work? The EU says yes at least for some types of works, and it wants Canada to see things its way. "Europe's Directive 2001/84/EC says that the right covers only 'works of graphic or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs, provided they are made by the artist himself or are copies considered to be original works of art.'"

Aren't we constantly told that the EU is so much better in regards to patents and copyrights and it's only the big bad US that is constantly trying to push all this stuff on people?

I would argue that big Government is the problem here. If you take an individual country the size of Sweden or Canada it's more probable that it will be responsive to the concerns and needs of it's citizens. Take a large bloated government like the US Federal Government or EU and it seems to be more probable that it gets bought off by a combination of machine politics and special interests.

I would argue that big Government is the problem here. If you take an individual country the size of Sweden or Canada it's more probable that it will be responsive to the concerns and needs of it's citizens. Take a large bloated government like the US Federal Government or EU and it seems to be more probable that it gets bought off by a combination of machine politics and special interests.

As a Canadian I would argue that our government is owned entirely by corporations. My vote goes to the politician who has sold his soul to the Canadian corporations.

Honestly? Speaking as a Spaniard, I see the official and populist line in Spain is that the EU is A Great Thing. Why?

(1) After Franco, Spain was way behind the rest of Western Europe in terms of infrastructure and social justice. When it joined the EU (then EC) in 1986, it received huge sums for investment in large scale programmes. Before this time, the big money had often come from US private investment (Spaniards were cheap labour!), which certainly provided jobs but wasn't going to build roads and railways or take care of the very sick....queue a couple decades of investment and the rising middle classes...

(2) Then after Aznar's monumentally stupid blaming of the local terr'ist group, ETA, for bombings in Madrid the day before the election, the pendulum swung from pro-US back to anti-US sentiment. The prevailing impression in Spain still seems to be that the EU stands as some great body to counter US influence, even though it's by and large motivated by special interests which often lie in common with the special interests of the US elite.

(3) (perhaps slightly prejudiced) Spaniards like patriarchal government. The legacy of Franco is still there, obviously. They're obsessed with a veneer of political correctness, still compensating for their once genuinely macho culture, but ultimately they don't like the idea of a nation of independent individuals, preferring a very detailed, united conception of morality and society. This sentiment is easy to take advantage of.

No, but in International affairs, If Bush said jump, Aznar would ask how high. So Aznar's behavior stuck for a bit. The party that took over had awful relations with Bush, which didn't help matters.

And frankly, the anti-americanism started with the Iraq invasion. The majority of Spaniards never bought into Bush's argument. You can find pictures of million man demonstrations that occurred after Aznar, Blair and Bush met at the Azores to discuss the invasion.

So then how do you explain Spain implementing the EU Copyright Directive? It's not much bigger than Canada. Or how the Czech Republic and Finland have also implemented portions of it.

Dunno about the rest of them, but Finnish politicians have been searching for someone to bend the country over for ever since the Soviet Union fell. That's why they implement anything that Brussels, Washington and Moscow care to demand, the more harmful to the country the better, since that lets them show what good team player

EU is not a monolithic body, and concerning copyrights it's a violent battleground between the two sides. New repressions are raised as proposed laws by member countries then struck down by the EU parliament majority. Laws forbidding such repressions are raised and fought over as well. Commissions (which are generally pro-copyright and do most of the work) try to circumvent the parliament (which has the final vote and is generally pro-freedom), then the parliament members notice the shenanigans, bitchslap t

AFAICT, we are constantly told that the EU is so much better in regards to medical care, social programs in general, environmental laws, gun laws, architecture, culture, art, world peace, sexual repression, drug laws, and trading value of the Euro vs. the dollar among other things, much of which is debatable, but hardly relevant here. In general, the world's most developed countries are realizing that more and more of what they ("we", I suppose, since I''m in the US) have to trade on internationally is IP rather than physical goods, which can usually be made cheaper elsewhere. If the developed countries want to keep their riches, they have to keep their IP secure. I think the drive to implement (or "impose", depending on how you look at it) oppressive international IP agreements draws more fire when the US does it because at home and abroad the US is often perceived as an aggressive superpower exporting cultural imperialism. On the other hand, when the EU does it, they are beneficently supporting artists' rights.

Well, I think this is a short term vision. What rich countries need to stay rich is not IP, it is the power to create new and innovative IP. Likewise, a country owning factories is richer than a country owning final goods. IP laws are good for the capitalization of IPs and bad for the creation of IPs. Walt Disney makes more profits from every year's movie they are making than from Donald Duck or Snow White. But protecting those 50+ years old IPs prevent them from being used as raw material for new ones. I h

It's not the U.S. that is behind all of this. I believe it is the powerfully rich media publishers behind all of this. They corrupted and influenced the U.S. government which has been pushing other governments to do the same. At the same time, I think the same media publishers are pushing other governments with the same purpose and intent.

I guess it is to be expected for every/. article to spiral into at least one anti-American diatribe, but even this one is a stretch. Mod topic -1 offtopic.

It's not really "Anti American" (some of us still like individual Americans) -- it's "Anti export of American laws to the rest of the world".

It is entirely American companies who have been pushing to have the DMCA exported, who are responsible for including it in that secretive ACTA treaty they're not allowed to tell us the details of, and it's American

-It is entirely American companies who have been pushing to have the DMCA exported, who are responsible for including it in that secretive ACTA treaty they're not allowed to tell us the details of, and it's American intellectual property stakeholders who are trying to push this on everyone else.

Europe isn't a utopia when it comes to copyrights. Everyone made a big deal about that copyright term extension act that was proposed by Sonny Bono, and while it was a heinous bill at least it didn't revive expired copyrights like the copyright extension legislation in the EU did.

The summary is terrible, there is no DMCA style legislation in the EU. The article says:

The U.S. has proposed provisions that would mandate a DMCA-style implementation for the WIPO Internet treaties and encourage the adoption of a three-strikes and you're out system to cut off access where there are repeated allegations of infringement.

Actually a few countries in the EU have passed DMCA-like legislation. But from the article:

Anti-circumvention provisions. The EU is demanding that Canada implement anti-circumvention provisions that include a ban on the distribution of circumvention devices. There is no such requirement in the WIPO Internet treaties.

I also find that a bit odd. I'm wondering what effects this could have with our Ties in the US. I mean the states secretly want to assimilate us. On occaison a president will ask us to do something, and we'll oblige (Afghanistan) and other times we won't (Iraq).

So, what would The States think about this proposal, and how will that effect Canada's decision?

They have enough asinine copyright laws as it is. Seriously? An extra charge on blank optical and tape media because it "might" be used to pirate? Does this go for hard drives and bandwidth? I'm with the current US and Canada system. The artist don't benefit much, it's the royalty houses are the ones that really benefit. Don't they get enough from performance, broadcast, sales, etc..? Artist can go broke trying to collect their money.

Your post was modded as funny, but I think a lot of people think that way. I'd at least feel less guilty pirating - if I would ever do such a thing - if I knew they were getting paid even when I wasn't.

Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying a sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized the private copying of sound recordings of musical works

Depends on how you copy it. In Canada the blank media levy is actually a trade off, in exchange for us paying a levy on blank media, it is actually perfectly legal for us to copy music, provided we follow a few simple rules.- you must have the original in your possession to make a copy. (no provisions are made as to how you acquire this original CD, however it must be done without breaking any other laws, so shoplifting is out, however buying it new or used is ok, as is trading it, being given it, etc)- you

For bandwidth, yes. All major ISPs in Canada still cap bandwidth, and all of them additionally throttle P2P. I moved here from the states, and let me tell you, compared to this America is a shining beacon of the future when it comes to broadband.

For now, try to get service from a small ISP. They don't cap but the ISPs that they buy bandwidth from throttle in peak hours. It could be worse - I'm in the fortunate situation of being about to move from Canada to Australia, the only country that appears to have worse Internet than Canada (expensive, capped, throttled and censored.

You raise an interesting point. It had never occurred to me that a levy could be imposed on bandwidth - or P2P bandwidth by applying deep-packet inspection. It seems like a logical extension of the blank-media levy. A terrible idea, of course, but one that will probably be on draft legislation. It would have the effect of legalizing pirating by imposing a tax pirates and non-pirates alike, but someone will still think that's it's a good idea.

That is not what international law is at all. International law is the stuff that happens in The Hague and it has been around a long time and is desperately needed. It governs such silly every day things as trade. If you trade between countries (between sets of laws) which one goes? Well, that is what international law is for.

And it is in Holland because Holland was ONCE a world-power (yes really) but lost that status but still had a need to maintain its trading empire. So while the british and other powers settled trade disputes with the law of the biggest gun(boat) Holland needed something more.

International law is an entirely different beast then this, what we are talking about here are treaties. It may look the same, but it is fundementally different.

In fact, the current system is so wrong because it seeks to bypass laws altogether. The media companies are waging a very complex war against basic law by trying to get a new set of laws introduced by means that were never intended. Trade treaties were supposed to be "We sell you X and you don't charge for it and we allow you sell us Y without charging tariffs on it". Not "you will subject your citizens to our laws".

As a matter of interest, the phrase "international law" covers the law governing the resolution of disputes on international trade, as well as disputes between states that are governed by treaties (among other sources of international law). The prior is known as private international law (see, e.g. UNIDROIT [wikipedia.org] for the most recent attempts to codify the norm), the latter public international law [wikipedia.org]. Private international law generally refers to the mechanism for choosing a procedural and substantive law

Please tell the EU to go fuck itself and/or adapt its copyright and patent law to the Canadian model.

And possibly to close Disneyland Paris, stop accepting money from **AA and start developing some common sense.

Crap, I think I overdid it with that last part. They are, after all, politicians. But if they're supposed to represent the European population, let me be the first to say this isn't what all of the population wants.

I wish I could mod you up. The Canadian people are supposed to make our laws. If we don't want your copyright laws too bad for you. I'd rather live without even seeing another European book or movie in my life then have them make my laws. Mr. PM are you listening?

(Expose and excise Corporatism. Businesses are NOT a component of "The People", at least as the US founding Fathers meant.)

Sure they were. A lot of the founders ran successful businesses. Some of the powers like the US government's ability to regulate interstate commerce were obviously put in there for business. Finally, since it needs to be said again, businesses are made of people. The business executes the wishes of those people. When you shaft a business under the pretext that it isn't a "component of 'The People'", you are shafting the people who make up that business. Those people are "The People".

You know, if that comment had been made by an American, it would have attracted at least three angry comments before it was modded down to -1. Instead it's +3 and rising. What happened to unilateralism being bad? The idea that a nation should act selfishly in its own national interest, with no thought as to how its actions will be perceived internationally? Parent is an outright rejection, complete with profanity! I'm really puzzled...honest question, not a flame.

The reason it would have been modded down if it were by an American is that the American Government is over there mucking about in other people's Countries before getting its house in order, making the statement completely hypocritical.

Canadians on the other hand, do very little besides peacekeeping, and combing the hills of Afghanistan.

You miss the point, sir. The point was, unilateralism is bad, mmmkay? I have heard this point thousands of times. Either unilateralism is bad, or it's not. What I'm hearing is when they do it, it's bad, but when we do it, it's good. If that ain't hypocrisy then I don't know what is.

The US is side pushing laws on others.../. sides with sovereign decisions. Canada is the little guy and likely to lose,/. sides with the little guys. And Canada is on the side of less copyright law/. generally sides with sane laws.

As a Canadian, to all foreign powers who demand we change our laws to match yours, I say fuck you. Get your house in order before you tell us how to get ours in order.

I don't buy your claim. If you were really a Canadian, you would have asked more politely. And the apologized for how their house wasn't in order, even though it wasn't your fault. And then said the same thing in French.

I politely say, "that's nice". Please take a seat there by the Americans who have made the same demands. we'll see you after them. They've been waiting a few years, so you make want to bring a lunch and something to read.
Really, the government is in a minority position (has been for a few years) and has plenty of real trouble to deal with... they also want to be elected with a majority some day so they are not apt to piss off the population too much.

What is the fundamental difference between physical art and digital art such that the digital art shouldn't be covered by the first sale doctrine? As far as I can tell, the only difference is the presence of a lobby...

Let's go beyond that - what's the difference between art like Duchamp's toilet and an actual toilet? One was declared art, the other wasn't. Now why isn't a car art? A lot of people actually argue that at least some cars are art - the Audi TT, the Ferrari GTO, Rolls Royce Silver Phantom; heck, even the venerable Citroen 2CV and old VW Beetle is considered art. So should these car markers get a cut each time one of these is resold?

Canada should not allow itself to be bullied into adopting bad copyright law. While the European Union appears quite eager to be as bad (or worse) than the United States in terms of harmful copyright legislation, I sincerely hope Canada will put its citizens interests above those of copyright holders. I'm not against globalization, but countries must sometimes defend their sovereignty for the sake of their citizens.

Throughout the summer, Canada held an enormous copyright consultation in which large corporations expressed an interest in these types of changes, and artists, creators and citizens expressed an interest in the exact opposite direction to this.

Michael Geist [michaelgeist.ca] usually carries all the latest news about this topic.

At the same time, I think we have nothing to worry about. In a country that shows a 30% voter turnout (at best), that makes 6.9 million voters. Historically, over 500000 canadians joined the protest against the last attempt to bring laws like this. Thats a 7% swing in the vote towards the party that will stand up against this type of law making. Thats enough to win an election in Canada.

With all this hype over copyright and trademark law, I expect it to be a hot topic in the next election, and with us running under a minority gov't, we could end up with an election at any time.

I've always been a little wishy washy when it comes to voting, I mean both Liberals and Conservatives end up making good points, and I always end up voting for whoever sounds like less of a douche at the debates, despite if their policy actually makes sense or not.

However, this is something that concerns me a bit more. Usually everything breaks down into what will cost us the most tax dollars versus the benefit it brings us. I go along and pay my taxes no matter how much they demand (which is quite ludicrous right now actually, we're taxed something like 40% after GST, PST, Income and other taxes, and don't have half the services of some european countries).

But this is another issue altogether. This could effect the way I do things, punishable by the law. So - yeah, I want to see who supports what in this whole debacle.

The only way it would affect anything is if these particular 7% of voters were concentrated only in the swing ridings, where the races are within a couple votes. If they were evenly distributed across the country, since we have the first past the post system, I doubt it would affect much.

In my neck of the woods, in the Taché riding in SE Manitoba, no matter who you vote for, the Conservatives win, because their candidate, Vic Toews, is a senior cabinet member. He was the Justice Minister for a while,

Also, be aware, that the EU “government” is not the people that live in the countries that it thinks it has control over. It’s actually pretty much the opposite. They are enemies. A treasonous conspiracy (not in the weirdo meaning, but in the legal meaning), and illegal in pretty much every country, if it weren’t for changes in laws that nobody got asked for and nobody wanted.

.. as soon as all of Europe has switched to drinking Blue, eating backbacon, wearing BC Dinner Jackets, Kodiaks, and a toque (particularly the French), and playing Hockey (a real sport) rather than "football", maybe the Canadians would once again take up the issue of copyright law:-) Oh yeah, no more speaking French (outside of Quebec), they must pronounce the work "out" as "oooot", and they have to get some Timmy's opened. And Universal Healthcare... oh wait, it the USA that still needs that. And Timmy's

Defeating the entire purpose of the law in the first place: to protect small time artists.

Where did you get that?

I'm pretty certain that the entire purpose of the law is to make large multinational corporations the gateholders to our arts and culture, and prevent small-time artists from entering the market from without sponsorship from said corps.

Am I reading this right? If I make a ceramic tile design, I'll get a cut from all future ceramics made with that pattern, anywhere in the EU or Canada? I think I'm in the wrong industry.

Well, yes - that is called a "royalty" and its perfectly standard operating procedure in the US, EU and elsewhere. It works for software, too. The manufacturer is copying your design and needs your permission to do that.

The rule in TFA is aimed at "fine artists" who create a single, original work (or a small number of "original" prints from a woodcut or photograph) and sell it. If they sell it to a collector for €100 who then sells it on for €100000 then they'd like a slice of that action, pleas